Re: Discussion about include file location.

Hmmmm  good point.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:15:12PM -0400, Chris Hanson wrote:
>    Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:19:23 -0500
>    From: "William J. Mills" <[email protected]>
> 
>    > The only problem I see with this is a minor one, in that it makes
>    > references to the installed include files non-standard.  That is,
>    > using "<FOO.h>" when the file is actually in "/usr/include/beepcore/"
>    > fools the programmer into thinking that the files are in
>    > "/usr/include/".  Most other references to subdirectories of
>    > "/usr/include/" include the subdirectory name in the include
>    > statement, e.g. "<sys/stat.h>".  All other things being equal, I'd
>    > prefer to use "<beepcore/FOO.h>" references instead.
>    > 
>    > (Note that I am agnostic on "beepcore/" vs. "beepcore-c/"; I chose the
>    > latter because it was more specific.)
> 
>    This is the key to the distinction, that the external developer/consumer
>    of the beepcore library would use something like <beepcore-c/FOO.h>
>    but internally we'd just use "bp_malloc.h".
> 
> Well, that's OK for the .c files, but the .h files themselves must
> still use the "<beepcore-c/FOO.h>" notation, or they won't work when
> installed.  I don't know how to fix that other than by rewriting the
> .h files prior to installation.  (Which is what I did in my first
> attempt at packaging the software.)  Rewriting seems like an even
> uglier hack than building a directory of symlinks.
> 
> Then the issue is that the .c files and the .h files are using
> different notation to refer to the same include files.  As I said
> before, that seems like an unnecessary confusion.  That's why I chose
> to make everything uniformly use the "<beepcore-c/FOO.h>" notation.


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31